Faced with a new client brief, any IPA accredited author will have at the back of his or her mind the club motto: Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful - a banner which has absolutely nothing in common with the court-room oath, 'I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. When it comes to writing promotional copy, the ground rules are simple: Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and if you must mess with Mister (or Mrs.) in between, then keep it out of the office. (Once the lights are on nobody sleeps).

Unlike the academic arena, where published discussion is evidence-based and even handed, tending, but no more than that, toward whichever interpretation appears to be favoured by the most recent data, promotional work is nothing if not biased. Whatever the product, as far as advertising is concerned there is never a 'downside.'

With these considerations in mind, certain material, only now available on the internet, makes for intriguing reading. Unlike Robert Redford's undercover associates in the film Three Days of the Condor, I do not have the time to read everything written about the Madeleine McCann affair. Chance alone has led me to some recent contributions posted on a newly established 'blog' entitled Gonšalo Amaral, Fact of the Fiction. These would appear to be a mixture of comments 'lifted' from third-party sources and accompanied by contributions from the two principal authors, one of whom is identified as Vee8.

I do not propose to cross swords with these people, who may hold whatever opinions they wish of Gonšalo Amaral. Suffice to say that the recent 'Inside Out' broadcast by the BBC offers ample evidence of divergence in this regard, and how 'strength of feeling' can come across with as much apparent authority as authority itself. As stated, I do not have time to read everything, everywhere and, having skimmed the content of Gonšalo Amaral, Fact of the Fiction, I am disinclined to read everything there also. That is my prerogative. But several aspects of this particular blog have caught my attention nonetheless, not least the home page announcement of its creation in the immediate aftermath of the injunction against Amaral's book being overturned on appeal; that and the fact it is linked directly to the McCanns' own Facebook site.

The article of Vee8's to which I was unexpectedly directed was posted on 18 November. Entitled 'A Tale of Two Bookies' it presents, in common with the general thrust of the blog, a negative interpretation of Gonšalo Amaral's publishing endeavours. Now, that in itself is not a heinous sin. We are each of us entitled to hold an opinion after all, as forum members of all complexions should appreciate. They will also be aware (and I state this merely as a matter of fact, not in order to appear condescending) that some contributors are more eloquent than others (this is especially so given the number of those struggling to make their voices heard in a foreign language - an effort for which they are to be applauded, certainly not derided). My point is that, with so many people from so many different backgrounds joining in the debate, the population of contributors will inevitably include 'media types', and we know that to be the case.

When we read something by an author who writes for a living, it will have a practised 'ring' to it. Typographical errors will be few and far between and certain stylistic inflexions may hold sway. Whereas the observations made by others may express, coherently or otherwise, their 'strength of feeling', i.e. their emotional stance, something constructed with due regard to the use of language is likely to be as 'deliberate' in its preparation as in its execution.

So what am I driving at?

The Tale of Two Bookies is nothing if not deliberate. Apart from a series of emotive quotes 'bagged up' and dismissed at the outset, it contains no genuinely negative observations (none with the potential to negate the author's own argument, that is). In short, it has the ring of a PR exercise. It is also lodged in a resource linked directly to that of the McCanns themselves.

Let's then take a closer look at some of the arguments advanced by Vee8."We have reason to believe that Amaral stated that a portion, (I think I remember reading the figure of 10%) of his profits will go to children's charities. A noble gesture, if true. The McCanns, on the other hand, make it very clear that ALL the profits from THEIR book will go to the fund that is financing the search for their missing daughter."Leaving aside the vague 'reason to believe', we have Amaral ostensibly donating a mere 10% of his royalties to charitable causes, whereas the McCanns will donate all of their profits to the fund. But the fund, as we know, is not a charity. So the truth to be understood (rather than that portrayed) is: Amaral's charitable giving 10%. McCanns' charitable giving 0%.

The author then proceeds as follows:"'The truth of the Lie' by Amaral, has sold several million copies to date, netting him somewhere in the region of 1.2 million euros in royalties. The McCann's search fund, at one point, topped over two million pounds. Since then the McCanns have been completely open and transparent with the funds, publishing a full annual account in the press for the scrutiny of the public. Amaral, however, has yet, as far as I know, to do the same. If he did promise to make a payment to children's charities it has, so far, yet to be made good. So what HAS Amaral done with all his profits?"What this offers us, first and foremost, is confirmation that the metric underlying the McCanns' libel action against Gonšalo Amaral is his profits, not their suffering. It can surely be no coincidence that they are seeking damages of 1.2 million euros! Beyond that however we have the McCanns portrayed as 'completely open and transparent'... 'publishing a full annual account in the press for the scrutiny of the public.' This is in contradistinction to Gonšalo Amaral, who has done no such thing.

Let us also be completely, rather than partially transparent. The McCanns do not publish accounts in order to salve their consciences. The 'Fund' is a public limited company. As such it is legally obliged to publish its accounts. Gonšalo Amaral is neither of these things. (Would you pay to have your P60 published in the local newspaper?). Unless Vee8 is intercepting Amaral's personal correspondence, how does he or she presume to know whether or not this author has made and/or honoured any pledges to charity? Perhaps it has something to do with the unspecified 'reasons to believe.'

The remainder of the piece is sheer 'school of Goebbels' propaganda - decently written, but na´ve in its propositions.

What we have here is a McCann PR vehicle. Its establishment immediately post the appeal decision could be taken as an expression of the couple's fear that Amaral's book will indeed appear in the U.K. Why so? Well, in just the same honest-to-goodness fashion that a genuinely libelled party will take action immediately, in order to minimise any damage done to their public image, so anyone feeling 'hot under the collar' about Gonšalo Amaral in general and his book (in Portuguese) in particular, would have set up their blog and vented their spleen long since.

It has previously been suggested elsewhere that Amaral could not, in any case, publish A Verdade da Mentira in the U.K., for fear of infringeing U.K. libel laws. With the lifting of the injunction he clearly has a 'window of opportunity' and I would venture to suggest that, since any half-way decent translation would have to be typeset anew, any version to be put before an English speaking audience would be thoroughly vetted and edited to leave not so much as a hint of libel. Should an English edition of A Verdade da Mentira play strictly by the rules therefore, the McCanns would find themselves on a very sticky wicket indeed - and they know it.

What Gonšalo Amaral, Fact of the Fiction represents is a pre-emptive strike against a moving target. The Japanese, having learnt from an escapade by the British at Taranto a year or so earlier, learnt again, after Pearl Harbour, that such an action can only be truly effective if the whole fleet's at anchor. Had the American aircraft carriers been at home when the Japanese called, history would, no doubt, have taken an altogether different turn. Likewise, the best the McCanns can do in the face of an impending literary assault, is attempt somehow to discredit the author in advance. (They dare not wait until his book has been read the length and breadth of the country). The trouble is they know not what, exactly, might appear in print, nor when. And Gonšalo Amaral, I am reliably informed, is not one to broadcast his intentions.

I can't do the links - not sure how to. I have put in what I think should be the links.

Angelique

Last edited by Angelique on Sat 4 Dec - 19:14; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : inserting links)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________When the character is not clear to you - look at their friends - japanese proverb editedAngeliquePlatinum Poster